Announcements
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 88

Announcements PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 80 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Announcements. Sample exam questions This week (Thursday): You will submit your Qs into dropbox Bring Completed Homework For next class: sentence completion survey given to friends. Psy1302 Psychology of Language. Lecture 11 & 12 Sentence Comprehension II. Models of Sentence Processing.

Download Presentation

Announcements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Announcements

Announcements

  • Sample exam questions

    • This week (Thursday): You will submit your Qs into dropbox

  • Bring Completed Homework

    • For next class: sentence completion survey given to friends.


Psy1302 psychology of language

Psy1302 Psychology of Language

Lecture 11 & 12Sentence Comprehension II


Models of sentence processing

Models of Sentence Processing

  • Garden-Path Model

    • Autonomous

      • Late closure

      • Minimal attachment

  • Constraint-Based Model

    • Interactive

      • Lexical Biases

      • Referential Contexts

      • Structural Biases

}

Cues from multiple sources

constrain interpretation


Traditional views contrasting lexical and syntactic ambiguity

Traditional Views(contrasting lexical and syntactic ambiguity)

Constraint-Satisfaction Model SAYS it’s not the right characterization!

Table from MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg Paper


Experiment to test the 2 models tanenhaus spivey knowlton eberhard sedivy 1995

Experiment to test the 2 models(Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, & Sedivy, 1995)

Method: Eye-Tracking During Listening


Group 1

Setting-Up the Experiment: RC

Group 1

Put

the

frog

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.


Group 2

Setting-Up the Experiment: RC

Group 2

Put

the

frog

that

is

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.


Which group was garden pathed

Setting-Up the Experiment: RC

Which group was garden-pathed?

  • Group 1:

    Put the frog on the napkin in the box.

  • Group 2:

    Put the frog that is on the napkin in the box.


What is a relative clause

Setting-Up the Experiment: RC

What is a Relative Clause?

  • Relative Clause: a subordinate clause that modifies the noun

  • Group 1:

    Put the frog on the napkin in the box.

  • Group 2:

    Put the frogthat ison the napkin in the box.

REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE,AMBIGUOUSAT “ON”

NON-REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE,UNAMBIGUOUSAT “ON”


Garden path model

How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:

Put the frog on the napkin in the box.

The sentence processed using these 2 simple rules:

Late Closure & Minimal Attachment

Sometimes these simple rules lead leads one down the incorrect path, and a reanalysis is necessary.

Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path

Garden-Path Model


Where to attach

Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path

Late Closure

When possible, attach incoming lexical items into the clause or phrase currently being processed (i.e., the lowest possible nonterminal node dominating the last item analyzed).

Minimal Attachment

Attach incoming lexical items into the phrase-marker being constructed with the fewest nodes consistent with well-formedness rules of language.

VP

V

NP

PP

frog

Det

N

P

put

the

on

Where to attach?

VP-attachment

put the frog on…

VP or NP?

NP-attachment


2 attachments 2 meanings

VP attachment

Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path

VP

V

NP

PP

Det

N

P

NP

put

the

frog

on

Det

N

the

napkin

VP

V

NP

PP

put

NP

Det

NP

N

P

the

frog

on

Det

N

the

napkin

2 Attachments & 2 Meanings

  • NP attachment

PP phrase as modifier of “frog”

PP phrase as destination of “put”

the frog (that is) on the napkin…

on(to) the napkin

the frog

put


Where to attach1

Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path

Late Closure

When possible, attach incoming lexical items into the clause or phrase currently being processed (i.e., the lowest possible nonterminal node dominating the last item analyzed).

Minimal Attachment

Attach incoming lexical items into the phrase-marker being constructed with the fewest nodes consistent with well-formedness rules of language.

VP

V

NP

PP

frog

Det

N

P

put

the

on

Where to attach?

VP-attachment

1. CANNOT attach directly to NP:

NP  Det N PP

IF attach to NP:

NP  NP PP

 Violates Minimal Attachment!

2. Attach to VP:

VP  V NP PP

 Does NOT violate either rules!

VP or NP?

NP-attachment


Garden path model1

Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path

put the frog on…

1. Syntactic processor first VP-attaches for “on”

put the frog on the napkin in…

2. When encountering the 2nd prep “in” of “in the box”, parser does not know how to incorporate the word.

3. Reanalysis is needed due to incorrect first parse  longer processing time.

Garden-Path Model

  • How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:

    Put the frog on the napkin in the box.

  • Answer:


Constraint satisfaction model

How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:

Put the frog on the napkin in the box.

Constraint-Satisfaction Model uses information from multiple sources to constrain interpretation

In this case the lexical and contextual information likely does not support the interpretation or favors another one.

Setting-Up the Experiment: Garden-Path

Constraint-Satisfaction Model


Constraint satisfaction model1

How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:

Put the frog on the napkin in the box.

BIG Q: What kinds of information can be used to constrain interpretation?

Examples:

Lexical Biases

Referential Context

Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model

Constraint-Satisfaction Model


Constraint satisfaction model2

Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model

Constraint-Satisfaction Model

Lexical Biases

  • Type of syntactic/semantic environments in which a word appears

    Example:

    • “Put” almost always appears with a VP attached PP (destination)

      • “Put the car in the garage”

    • “Choose” rarely does so

      • “Choose the car in the garage”


Constraint satisfaction model3

Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model

Constraint-Satisfaction Model

  • How does the model explain the difficulty of parsing:

    Put the frog on the napkin in the box.

  • Lexical Biases Support VP-attachment

    • “Put” almost always appears with a VP attached PP (destination)

    • “on” is a locative preposition

      • “on the napkin” is a location

      • i.e., compatible with possibility of a destination required by “put”


Constraint satisfaction model4

Referential Context

Pick a frog.

Which frog did you pick?

Modifiers pick out a member of a set

When 2+ referents, modifiers help differentiate the referent in question

Setting-Up the Experiment: Constraint-Satisfaction Model

Constraint-Satisfaction Model


Experiment to test the 2 models tanenhaus spivey knowlton eberhard sedivy 19951

Experiment to test the 2 models(Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, & Sedivy, 1995)

  • FINALLY, the experiment!!!

  • Do we consider the referential context in parsing?

  • More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?

http://www.ircs.upenn.edu/Trueswellabs/video.html


Announcements 5334204

Put

the

frog

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.

  • Do we consider the referential context in parsing?

  • More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?

1-Referent: 1 frog

2-Referents: 2 frogs

OR


Announcements 5334204

Put

the

frog

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.

  • Do we consider the referential context in parsing?

  • More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?

NAPKIN is a potential destination.

1-Referent: 1 frog

2-Referents: 2 frogs

OR


Announcements 5334204

Put

the

frog

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.

  • Do we consider the referential context in parsing?

  • More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?

BY GARDEN-PATH MODEL:

Regardless of 1 or 2 referent, during the first pass, NAPKIN is considered as a destination.

1-Referent: 1 frog

2-Referents: 2 frogs

OR


Announcements 5334204

Put

the

frog

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.

BY CONSTRAINT-SATISFACTION MODEL

(which takes into consideration of referential context early):

For 1 referent, NAPKIN is considered as a destination

For 2 referent, NAPKIN could potentially be a modifier of FROG, and NOT a destination

  • Do we consider the referential context in parsing?

  • More specifically, WHEN do we consider referential parsing?

1-Referent: 1 frog

2-Referents: 2 frogs

OR


Tanenhaus spivey knowlton eberhard sedivy 1995

(2-Referents)

(2-Referents)

(1-Referent)

(1-Referent)

Tanenhaus, Spivey-Knowlton, Eberhard, & Sedivy (1995)

Method: Eye-Tracking During Listening

AMBIGUOUS SENTENCE HEARD:

Put the frog on the napkin… into the box.

UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCE HEARD:

Put the frog that is on the napkin… into the

box.


Announcements 5334204

PUT THE FROG ON THE NAPKIN IN THE BOX.

CORRECT DESTINATION

INCORRECT DESTINATION

- Reduced Relative

- Unreduced Relative “that is”


Typical eye movement for the ambiguous sentences

4

1

2

3

Typical Eye-movement for the Ambiguous Sentences

1-Referent: 1 frog

2-Referents: 2 frogs

Put

the

frog

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.

3

4

1

2


Typical eye movement for the ambiguous sentences1

4

B

1

A

2

3

Typical Eye-movement for the Ambiguous Sentences

1-Referent: 1 frog

2-Referents: 2 frogs

Put

the

frog

on

the

napkin

in

the

box.

3

4

1

2

A

B


Constraint satisfaction model5

Constraint-Satisfaction Model

  • Highly Interactive

  • Limited Parallel Processing

    • If all information converge on a single analysis, then serial

    • If they do not, then several may be maintained


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

Noun Arg Structure

(prob. of PP)

e.g., frog

Verb Argument Structure

(prob. of PP)

e.g., put, choose

Preposition

prob. of NP vs. VP

e.g., of, on

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

or


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time1

Verb Argument Structure

(prob. of PP)

e.g., put, choose

Noun Arg Structure

(prob. of PP)

e.g., frog

Preposition

prob. of NP vs. VP

e.g., of, on

VP-Attachment

NP-Attachment

Referential Context

or

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

  • Selection of VP- vs. NP-attachment

    • Put the frog on…

  • When with:

    • 1 referent

    • 2 referent


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time2

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

Noun Arg Structure

(prob. of PP)

e.g., frog

Preposition

prob. of NP vs. VP

e.g., of, on

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

or


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time3

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

Noun Arg Structure

(prob. of PP)

e.g., frog

Preposition

prob. of NP vs. VP

e.g., of, on

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

or


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time4

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

Preposition

prob. of NP vs. VP

e.g., of, on

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

or


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time5

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

ON (P):

95% NP-Attach

5% VP-Attach.

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

or


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time6

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

ON (P):

95% NP-Attach

5% VP-Attach.

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

or


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time7

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

ON (P):

95% NP-Attach

5% VP-Attach.

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

or


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time8

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

ON (P):

95% NP-Attach

5% VP-Attach.

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

1-referent


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time9

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

ON (P):

95% NP-Attach

5% VP-Attach.

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

1-referent


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time10

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

ON (P):

95% NP-Attach

5% VP-Attach.

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

2-referents


How are cues combined interactive activation unfolding in time11

How are cues combined?(Interactive Activation Unfolding in Time)

ON (P):

95% NP-Attach

5% VP-Attach.

FROG (N): No bias

PUT (V): NP, PP

PP

NP-Attached

PP

VP-Attached

Referential Context

2-referents


Break

Break!


Moving on to assigned readings

Moving on to Assigned Readings

  • Garden Path Model vs. Constraint Satisfaction Model

    • Ferreira & Clifton (1986)

    • Trueswell, Tanenhaus, & Garnsey (1994)


Subtext

Subtext

  • These experiments test hypotheses

    • What was being tested?

    • What was found?

  • Multiple experiments

    • How did each experiment replicate or extend previous findings?

    • How did each experiment support or refute previous findings?


Outline

Outline

  • Stats Terms Simplified

    • t-tests

    • ANOVAs, Main effects and Interactions

    • Regressions, Correlations

  • Assigned Papers


T tests and anovas

T-tests and ANOVAs

  • T-tests: Compare 2 means.

  • ANOVA (Analysis of Variance): Compare multiple means

    • Yields significance of main or interaction effects


Hypothetical experiment example of main interactions effects

Hypothetical Experiment(Example of Main & Interactions Effects)

  • Dependent Measure: Number of Girlfriends

  • Independent Measure:

    • Wealth of bachelors according to Income

      • (Rich, Poor)

    • Looks of same bachelors according to Oprah

      • (Handsome, Ugly)


Design 2 x 2

Design 2 x 2

# of GF

# of GF

# of GF

# of GF


Announcements 5334204

Many

Few

Many

Few

Many

Most

Many

Many

Few

Many

Few

Few

Few

Many

Least

Few

handsome

handsome

#GFs

ugly

#GFs

ugly

Rich

Poor

Rich

Poor

handsome

handsome

#GFs

ugly

#GFs

ugly

Rich

Poor

Rich

Poor


Hypothetical experiment example of anovas f1 vs f2

Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)

  • Is a female model more attractive in short or long skirt?

    • Model pictured in 10 different short skirts and 10 different long skirts

    • 30 Males rated the model’s attractiveness in each skirt (1 = not attractive to 7 = extremely attractive)


Hypothetical experiment example of anovas f1 vs f21

Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)

  • F1: Subject Analysis

    • Comparing subjects

    • Averaging across items for each subject

  • F2: Items Analysis

    • Comparing items

    • Averaging across subjects for each item


Hypothetical experiment example of anovas f1 vs f22

Hypothetical Experiment(Example of ANOVAs F1 vs. F2)

  • F1: Subject Analysis

  • F2: Items Analysis

ShortLong

Frederick H.5.23.1

Hef7.07.0

Rudy G.5.24.9

Bill C.6.91.3

Rating

Short Skirt 14.5

Short Skirt 25.3

Long Skirt 16.7

Long Skirt 23.5


Correlations

Correlations

  • Regression

  • Correlation:

    • degree of association between two random variables.

  • Partial correlation:

    • degree of association between two random variables, with the effect of a set of controlling random variables removed.

  • -1 ≤ R ≤ 1

    • Positive correlation

    • Negative correlation

    • No correlation


Ferreira clifton 1986

Ferreira & Clifton (1986)

Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:

1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)

2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)

A: No, according to Garden-Path Model.

Autonomous/modular parser.

Context information is used only after initial parse.

Goal of Experiments:

To experimentally test (and provide evidence) for such a position.


Thematic roles

Thematic Roles

Terminologies

  • Thematic Roles and Argument Structure:

  • Thematic role is the semantic relationship between a predicate (e.g. a verb) and an argument (e.g. the noun phrases) of a sentence.


Thematic roles examples

Thematic Roles(examples)

  • Courtney hit the ball with the bat to Richard.

  • Verb: Hit

Patient

Goal

Instrument

Agent


Thematic roles more examples

Thematic Roles(more examples)

  • Agent: deliberately performs the action (e.g. Bill ate his soup quietly)

  • Experiencer: receives sensory or emotional input (e.g. Bill slept).

  • Theme/Patient: undergoes the action (e.g. The rocks crushed the car).

  • Instrument: used to carry out the action (e.g. He hit her with a stick).

  • Cause: mindlessly performs the action (e.g. An avalanche destroyed the ancient temple).

  • Location: where the action occurs (e.g. I put the car in the garage).

  • Goal: what the action is directed towards (e.g. I moved to Boston).

  • Source: where the action originated (e.g. I came from Harvard Square).

From WIKIPEDIA


Animacy

Animacy

  • Animacy pertains to likelihood the noun refers to an animate being, and thus is likely to be an agent (i.e., performer of an action).

  • Animate vs. Inanimate.

Inanimate

Animate


Animacy1

Animacy

  • Animate:defendant

    • Defendant = a good agent

      The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

  • Inanimate:evidence

    • Evidence = not a good agent (but possibly good theme/patient)

      The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.


Relative clause reduced vs unreduced

Relative Clause: Reduced vs. Unreduced

  • Reduced Relative Clause

    The defendant examined (by the lawyer) turned out to be unreliable.

  • Unreduced Relative Clause

    The defendant who was examined (by the lawyer) turned out to be unreliable.

Ambiguous at “examined”

Unambiguous at “examined”


Main clause vs reduced relative clause

Main Clause vs. Reduced Relative Clause

  • “The defendant examined…” is ambiguousat “examined” because the sentence has 2 possible continuations:

    Possibility 1: Main Clause Reading

    “examined” is the verb of the MAIN sentence.

    e.g. The defendant examined the lawyer.

    Possibility 2: Reduced Relative Clause Reading

    “examined” is the verb of the RELATIVE clause.

    e.g. The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.


Main clause vs reduced relative clause1

Easier by Garden-Path Model

Main Clause vs. Reduced Relative Clause

  • Possibility 1: Main Clause Reading

    “defendant” is the agent examining something

    [S[NP The defendant [VP examined…

  • Possibility 2: Reduced Relative Clause Reading

    “defendant” is the patient being examined

    [S[NP[NP The defendant [RC examined…

“The defendant examined…”


Design is there early thematic semantic influence

DISAMBIGUATING REGION

Design(Is there early thematic/semantic influence?)

4 Sentence Types:

  • Reduced, Animate

    The defendant examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

  • Reduced, Inanimate

    The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

  • Unreduced, Animate

    The defendant that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

  • Unreduced, Inanimate

    The evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.


F c experiment 1 the influence of thematic information

F&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic information

ANIMACY

SENTENCE TYPE


The measurement and scoring regions

The Measurement and Scoring Regions

  • Measures fixation time in regions

    • First pass: first left to right fixation on the region & right-to-left movement within the region

    • Second pass: regressions and rereading of the sentences after leaving region


F c experiment 1 the influence of thematic information1

F&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic information

(C = Critical Region that disambiguates local ambiguity)

  • Reduced

    The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

  • Unreduced

    The evidence that was examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

C+2

C-2

C-1

C+1

C

C+2

C-1

C-2

C+1

C


F c experiment 1 the influence of thematic information2

SLOW

FAST

SLOW

SLOW

FAST

FAST

FAST

FAST

F&C: Experiment 1the influence of thematic information

PREDICTIONS CONCERNING C & C+1

The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

C+1

C+2

C-2

C-1

C

FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS

MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)

INTERACTIVE


Announcements 5334204

PREDICTIONS CONCERNING C & C+1

SLOW

FAST

SLOW

SLOW

FAST

FAST

FAST

FAST

C+1

C+2

C-2

C-1

C

FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS

MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)

INTERACTIVE

The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

Main Effect of Reduction (maybe)

Main Effect of Animacy

Interaction Effect of Animacy x Reduction

Main Effect of Reduction

NO Main Effect of Animacy


Announcements 5334204

PREDICTIONS CONCERNING C & C+1

SLOW

FAST

SLOW

SLOW

FAST

FAST

FAST

FAST

C+1

C+2

C-2

C-1

C

FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS

MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)

INTERACTIVE

The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

MODULAR

INTERACTIVE

SLOW

FAST

FAST

FAST

SLOW

FAST

SLOW

FAST

Animate Reduced

Animate Unreduced

Inanimate Reduced

Inanimate Unreduced


Announcements 5334204

C+1

C+2

C-2

C-1

C

FAST OR SLOW PREDICTIONS

MODULAR

INTERACTIVE

SLOW

FAST

FAST

FAST

SLOW

FAST

SLOW

FAST

Animate Reduced

Animate Unreduced

Inanimate Reduced

Inanimate Unreduced

The evidence examined by the lawyer turned out to be unreliable.

ACTUAL RESULTS


Ferreira clifton 19861

Ferreira & Clifton (1986)

Q: Is the initial syntactic processing stage influenced by:

1. thematic/semantic information (Exp. 1)

2. pragmatic or contextual information (Exp. 2 & 3)

A: No, according to Garden-Path Model.

Autonomous/modular parser.

Context information is used only after initial parse.

Goal of Experiments:

To experimentally test (and provide evidence) for such a position.


F c experiment 2 referential context information

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

ATTACHMENT

CONTEXT


F c experiment 2 referential context information1

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

  • What types of sentences were tested?

    • VP-Attached vs. NP-Attached

    • Main Clause vs. Reduced Relative Clause


Vp vs np attachment

VP- vs. NP-attachment

  • Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / before his coffee break.

  • Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / onto the van.

(VP-attachment: Minimal Attachment)

(NP-attachment: Non-minimal Attachment)

NP-attached

VP-attached:


Vp vs np attachment1

S

NP

VP

NP

PP

V

Sam

loaded

the boxes

on the cart

VP- vs. NP-attachment

  • Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / before lunch. (VP-attachment: Minimal Attachment)

  • Sam loaded the boxes on the cart / onto the van(NP-attachment: Non-minimal Attachment)

VP-attached: Minimal

NP-attached: Non-Minimal

S

NP

VP

NP

V

NP

PP

Sam

loaded

on the cart

the boxes


F c experiment 2 referential context information2

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

Support + NMA

Support + MA

No Support + NMA

No Support + MA


Main vs reduced relative

Main vs. Reduced Relative

  • The man played the tape / and liked it.

  • The man played the tape / liked it.

(MAIN CLAUSE: Minimal Attachment)

(REDUCED RELATIVE: Non-minimal Attachment)

MAIN CLAUSE

REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE


Main vs reduced relative1

Main vs. Reduced Relative

  • The man played the tape / and liked it.(MAIN CLAUSE: Minimal Attachment)

  • The man played the tape / liked it.(REDUCED RELATIVE: Nonminimal Attachment)

MAIN CLAUSE: Minimal

REDUCED RELATIVE CLAUSE: Non-Min.

S

S

NP

VP

VP

NP

CONJ

S

NP

VP

V

NP

NP

NP

V

V

t

played

the tape

liked

and

The man

the tape

The man

played


F c experiment 2 referential context information3

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

Support + NMA

Support + MA

No Support + NMA

No Support + MA


F c experiment 2 referential context information4

FAST

FAST

FAST

SLOW

SLOW

SLOW

FAST

SLOW

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

Fast/Slow PREDICTIONS FOR CRITICAL REGION C

MODULAR (GARDEN-PATH MODEL)

INTERACTIVE

est

Effect of Attachment (maybe)

Effect of Attachment

Effect of Context

NO Effect of Context

Effect of Attachment x Context (maybe)


F c experiment 2 referential context information5

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

Results for VP-attached vs. NP-attached.

2nd Pass

1st Pass

Reading Time

Reading Time

C-1

C

C-1

C

Sam loaded

Sam loaded

the box on the cart

the box on the cart

NO Main Effect of Attachment

Main Effect of Region

Interaction Effect of Attachment x Region

NO Main Effect of Context

Main Effect of Attachment

Main Effect of Region

Interaction Effect of Attachm. x Region

NO Main Effect of Context


F c experiment 2 referential context information6

1st Pass

2nd Pass

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

Results for Main vs. Reduced

Reading Time

Reading Time

C+1

C-1

C

C+1

C-1

C

the story

was big

the story

was big

The editor

played the tape

The editor

played the tape

(and)

agreed

(and)

agreed

Main Effect of Attachment

Main Effect of Region

Interaction Effect of Attachm. x Region

NO Main Effect of Context

Main Effect of Attachment

Main Effect of Region

NO Main Effect of Context


F c experiment 2 referential context information7

F&C: Experiment 2Referential Context Information

Eye-movement Back to Previous Region & Percentage Correct on Probe Qs

E.g. Did Sam play the tape?

Eye movements back

EASIEST

HARDEST

Main Effect of Attachment

NO Main Effect of Context


F c experiment 3 replication of experiment 2 with another method

F&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 with another method

  • Self Paced Reading Time

    • Dashed lines as place holders for letters

    • Button press to see regions

      • Replacing dashed lines


F c experiment 3 replication of experiment 2 with another method1

F&C: Experiment 3Replication of Experiment 2 with another method

Main Effect of Attachment

Main Effect of Region

Interaction Effect of Attachment x Region

Interaction Effect of Context x Attachment!

(Context supporting minimal attachment reduced reading time.

Context supporting non-minimal attachment increased reading time)


Ferreira clifton 19862

Ferreira & Clifton (1986)

  • General Conclusions

    • Support Modular View

      • Initial parse disregard

        • Thematic information

        • Referential context

      • Support for Minimal Attachment

  • ANY CRITIQUES?


  • Login